September 1, 2009

The future of one-day cricket

Which way should one-day cricket go?

Sambit Bal

Most interesting. We are currently running a poll seeking your opinion on the future of one-day cricket, and on last count, more than 62% of you think it should be left as it is.

The other options were:

It should be fixed at 40 overs a side 40 overs and two innings And played less frequently

The ECB has decided where it stands and scrapped the 50-over game at the domestic level. The English have traditionally been the forerunners for change, however, only 18% of you seem to favour the 40-over format which the board has adopted.

The 50-over format, will of course, be around till the expiry of the ICC television rights in 2015. But who knows how the game would have changed by then?

As for me, I'd start with not reducing overs, but matches. What one-day cricket lacks the most at the moment is meaning and context. That's the subject for a bigger piece.

Sambit Bal is the editor of ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: Sambit Bal

Keywords: Future of cricket

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Shah on (December 29, 2009, 12:47 GMT)

I read an interesting idea on HoldingWilley.com, the bigger piece that you refer to in the last line of your entry. It suggests that every ODI match be turned into a World Cup qualifier, and the number of teams in the World Cup be reduced.

Posted by Sameer Singh on (December 15, 2009, 8:38 GMT)

The twenty20 WC should be played once in four years and should be played in new venues(like in Ireland,Holland,Kenya,USA etc something like FIFA WC in USA 94, Japan 02, and now in South Africa) this would help to introduce cricket in new areas and would arouse interest among the locals of non cricket playing nations which in future might benefit the ODIs .In ICC WORLD TWENTY20 the unpredictable winner makes it more interesting whereas in 50 over WORLDCUP we see only the Aussies dominating the game.I think something like WORLD CUP qualifiers and some friendlies among the nations in continents for both the formats should be introduced rather than playing for meaningless trophies which is forgotten after some months. And yes there should be no meaningless second rounds which rather should be replaced by knockout stages in the World Cup.

Posted by Sameer Singh on (December 15, 2009, 8:14 GMT)

Few years ago people loved ODIs but after the commencement of twenty20 people feel it boring and after some years they would feel twenty20 boring, then what should ten10 and then five5 be introduced. This would make cricket meaningless. I personally think that all the three formats are here to stay.Its just that there is the overdose of meaningless ODIs.I think the ICC are using ODIs to kill the bowlers by making wickets batsmen friendly. They can do certain changes in ODIs like the batting powerplays should be taken between 20-40 overs only.They should make the contest between bat and bowl even by playing ODIs in lively wickets (i.e the way ODIs were played during the 90s).In cricket WorldCup there are only 14 nations playing unlike the way the FIFA WORLDCUP which has 32 nations.So in cricket we see the contest between only 8 good cricket playing nations which is poor on ICC which boasts that cricket has completed a century.I think they should introduce WC qualifiers from continents.

Posted by Lt Col (Retd) Sandeep Pandit on (October 7, 2009, 5:32 GMT)

I personally think that all this brouhaha over the survival of 50-over matches is meaningless. What has changed since the first ODI was played? Nothing, except that it was reduced to 50 overs from 60 overs and a couple of power plays were introduced to stretch the field restrictions to 20 overs. Otherwise, the game has remained basically the same. It is only perception that is leading to the outcry. Since the introduction of T20, people have started "perceiving" the 50-over game as slow. When ODIs were introduced, everybody predicted the death of Tests. But Test cricket is still alive and kicking, and kicking hard. Same will be the case with ODIs. I agree with Mr Bal. The only change that is needed is to reduce the number of ODIs. Probably we have had a overdose of ODIs. ICC will do well to ensure that every tour has an equal number of matches of all the three formats. Suggestion - 3 Tests, 3 ODIs, 3 T20s. This will ensure that interest is kept alive for all 3 formats.

Posted by Max on (October 2, 2009, 6:06 GMT)

Bowling inovations need to be introduced to ODI to give a fairer contest. Allow 2 bowlers to bowl 15 overs each. Perhaps also require 5 bowlers to bowl at least 5 overs each.

Batting powerplays should not be allowed to be taken after the 40th over.

Easing of the leg side wide rule.

Posted by john on (September 29, 2009, 0:47 GMT)

I think there is confusion when the idea of 2 innings of 25 overs is advocated. Please specifiy whether you prefer each team play two 25 overs innings for 10 wickets each innings(20 wickets total per team) or whether you are advocating two 25 overs "segments" for 10 wickets total accross both segments for each team. I like the idea of the latter suggestion. Each side takes turns batting overs 1-25 in the "first half" then each side takes turns batting overs 26-50 in the "second half" for 10 wickets across the 50 overs for each side. The not out batsmen after the 25th over would resume on the 26th over in the "second half". A domestic tournament should trial before being attempted at the international level.

Posted by Simon on (September 26, 2009, 20:52 GMT)

I've been to a couple Champions Trophy Games this week and it's been fun. The attendance is not great, but that's more because of the ICC's woeful marketing efforts here in SA. Most people don't even know the games are on!

However, regarding the format the day nights are very unfair, especially in Johannesburg. If you are bowling at night, there is much more swing and its unfair.

Everyone I've spoken to agreed that it was nice to have a day long game (20/20 can feel a little trivial), but were in favour of Tendulkar's idea of 2 innings of 25 overs. That would even it out nicely and be more exciting.

Posted by Umesh on (September 24, 2009, 11:42 GMT)

Cricket is not a car or some other kind of property that can be modified, Cricket is a sport. A sport that we all love. A true cricket fan will not watch just one format we watch all three of them because we love cricket. By watching all the three formats of the game we have different reasons to cheer about and watch different cricketers perform at those levels. I think the ICC should not even think about changing the ODI format because according to me its the most fun to watch format and you get to see players display their skills in limited time (T20 is too short). ODI's are the best.... Cricket is best... Lets not forget why we watch cricket....

Posted by Suffyan on (September 23, 2009, 15:32 GMT)

FOR one-day cricket:

I think it's expiry date has gone now. It's way too long and boring. A change is what needed. All other sports are more interesting and fun and easy to watch, is because of short time. The only format that can make Cricket global and at the same time very challenging and entertaining is Twenty20 !

Frankly speaking who has time to sit whole day in front of TV, watching a 50 over game, which only entertains you in first 15 overs and last 5 overs, and you can easily predict who is going to win or loose before the actual finish !

Posted by NICK on (September 23, 2009, 5:10 GMT)

Suggestions for changes to 50 over cricket:

1. Permanent field restrictions. No powerplays. Maximum of three outfielders for the entire innings.

2. Remove ten over limit on overs per bowler. Any player may bowl as many overs as required.

3. As in warm-up matches for major tournaments, have 13 players per side (11 fielding, 11 batting). Forget the supersub idea. This works so much better.

4. Relegate England. Just kidding. Or am I?

Make 50 over cricket a different kind of game. The teams in 20 over cricket should end up containing a vastly different set of players than in ODI or test cricket. Let's make T20 the all-rounder's game.

Comments have now been closed for this article

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Sambit Bal
Editor-in-chief Sambit Bal took to journalism at the age of 19 after realising that he wasn't fit for anything else, and to cricket journalism 14 years later when it dawned on him that it provided the perfect excuse to watch cricket in the office. Among other things he has bowled legspin, occasionally landing the ball in front of the batsman; laid out the comics page of a newspaper; covered crime, urban development and politics; and edited Gentleman, a monthly features magazine. He joined Wisden in 2001 and edited Wisden Asia Cricket and Cricinfo Magazine. He still spends his spare time watching cricket.

All articles by this writer